Table 1 Comparing performance of VIFS with AFSS.

From: A distributed fMRI-based signature for the subjective experience of fear

Classifications

VIFS

AFSS

Discovery dataset

high versus low

100 ± 0%*** (2.58)

79 ± 5.0%*** (0.77)

high versus moderate

88 ± 3.9%*** (1.18)

42 ± 6.0%NS (−0.22)

moderate versus low

93 ± 3.1%*** (1.40)

84 ± 4.5%*** (1.02)

Validation dataset

high versus low

100 ± 0%*** (2.20)

95 ± 4.9%*** (1.88)

high versus moderate

90 ± 6.7%*** (1.21)

55 ± 11.1%NS (0.19)

moderate versus low

90 ± 6.7%*** (1.27)

65 ± 10.7%NS (0.78)

Generalization dataset

high versus low

87 ± 6.2%*** (1.10)

90 ± 5.5%***(1.56)

high versus moderate

83 ± 6.8%*** (0.97)

87 ± 6.2%*** (0.79)

moderate versus low

83 ± 7.0%*** (0.86)

93 ± 4.7%*** (1.52)

  1. For each dataset we used VIFS and AFSS to classify high, moderate, and low subjective fear using two-alternative forced-choice tests. Performance was shown as accuracy ± SE (Cohen’s d). *** denotes uncorrected P < 0.001, and NS denotes non-significant based two-sided binomial tests. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
  2. VIFS visually induced fear signature, AFSS animal fear schema signature.
Back to article page